Shahrukh’s main point was that critics should go the extra mile and have respect for their profession, don’t just sink into popularity contests and click competition. And my favorite Hindi film critic working today, Raja Sen, proved why he is my favorite by shooting the entire speech. Other people there caught a minute here and there and posted the excerpt. Raja Sen paid attention and treated Shahrukh’s message respectfully and got the whole thing.
https://www.hindustantimes.com/columns/raja-sen
His full video of the speech:
And here is my attempt at transcription. I can’t translate much of the Hindi, and I am sure I got several words wrong here or there, but I hope I got most of it correct. And in about 24 hours we will have tons of much better transcriptions and mine will become irrelevant:
Thank you all, all the critics and all the friends [Hindi: some of them are very old friends] Some of them became bad as they got older. [Hindi: I just arrived from China and I am a little jetlagged] I tried to write the speech if you have patience, I’ll take about 3 and a half minutes. [Hindi] The scene opens at an opulent award function with the main protagonist. Anupama Chopra sitting in the first row, bejewelled and dressed in the best designer wear. Looking resplendent in a many varied shades of white. Off-white, on white, on white-off-white. She’s whispering demurely in the ears of my old friend and colleague Rajeev Masand. Now this version of Masand is a far cry from the younger mustacheod one whose complicated vocabulary we all were so convinced by back in the days when I played anti-hero. He’s older now. A tad heavier if I may say. And his mustache has disappeared completely. A critic his age, as he would talk about other actors, might do better considering roles more suited for himself rather than trying to manage fitting his new over-sized fame into a single white sofa while pontificating on the exactness of a director’s angle as it closes onto Salman Khan [Hindi].
For Rajeev, I mean, judging master chief season three of three might fetch him more kudos from a slightly bored and jaded audience. Anupama meanwhile could take on any Bollywood siren if you would go just by the gushy tone in which she addresses male superstars while interviewing them, breaking into short shrilly giggles which could easily find place in a Stree type horror movie actually. Anyway as the scene progresses the plot begins to fall apart, the award function turns into yet another 6 hour long meandering extravaganza of badly choreographed dance numbers no one wants to watch. Not to mention an unendless parade of has been critics for whom lifetime unachievement awards have been lined up for through out the evening. A lucklaster unimaginative disappointment you wouldn’t want to recommend to your worst enemy. I’m going with 1 and a half stars.
Sorry about my 5 star sense of humor. Friends and beloved critics here we are at the Critics Choice Film Awards and I’m genuinely very very honored that you have invited me here. And to sound relevant I have written a speech and the point is that the world is changing and it is changing very very fast as we try to keep up with a new generation. that is super connected through social media, aware of itself like no generation before, and yet simultaneously fragile and impressionable. We also relate to art and the emotion and passion that drives it in new ways. For us artists the challenge is to remain centered in our creative expression while servicing short attention spans, new psychological paradigms, and fast more efficient communication networks. The future will bring tremendous learning and change both technologically and at the level of the artistic relevance of our work. [Hindi]
While we as artists are now at the mercy of an audience who now have so many options at their disposable in order to form an impression of a film’s quality from unbelievably plot revealing trailers to tweets to opinions to blogs and what have you. Even scene to scene reviews from the theater as it goes on itself. And hence the role of the critic is simply now (to break down to the basic truth) and the basic truth is that the best film criticism is an art that can help to unfold the beauty of the film. A well-written heartfelt review can reveal new facets of a film to an audience and cause their thinking to depart on a new line of thought instead of it becoming a rush to get your review declared as only positive or only negative coupled with the so called outreach culture of social media, we may end up reducing our powers of nuance and ambiguity and fairness as a society. As critics, like movie stars, I imagine that we will face one of two possibilities. That social media and its capacity to create egalitarian platforms for sharing views and opinions renders us both irrelevant. Yay for all the critics if they become irrelevant. Or the relevance of our views and our cinema actually increases as the reach of our ideas expands due to the same platforms. This of course would mean a new level of responsibility for both our sides.
We all know and accept it’s easy to critique art but there really ought to be a deeper consciousness that drives a critique. Art forms often emanate from places that transcend analysis and critique. The best artists were rarely recognized while alive precisely for this same reason. It took the world to evolve before it recognized the likes great masters such as Picasso Van Gogh Mozart, the list is endless. Art, after all, cannot become compartmentalized deconstructed or explained or be subject to the rigidity of logic. Have you ever read literary explanations of poetry, of Javed Saab for example? They reduce the rhythm and beauty of words to complicated pieces that remove all the joy from loveliest of verses.
So I request you all present here this evening, journalists and filmmakers, let’s not reduce the reviewers to provide an advisory service, a shopping guide, or a flipkart shopping cart option in the film world. We need a full understanding of criticism, one that grants it more credit than a tweet or a user review. Film critics should be film lovers who have chosen this path because they believe in cinema as an art form. So I hope and pray that these awards here tonight to the recognized masters of the future tonight make a difference. And may these awards lead to their mastery being recognized and appreciated by a larger and larger audience while they are present and working. I do also hope that these awards become more than just another opportunity for people like me, who really don’t do much as far art and cinema is concerned, for preening on the red carpet, as handsome and as cool as I may look at it. I hope they inspire all of us to reach beyond ideas of what is acceptable or viable art within a limited framework towards what is new resplendent with the magic of imagination and just plain brave.
And more importantly, stars like me and filmmakers like me have to change ourselves, as an actor and as a filmmaker I have to challenge myself to push the envelope as far as I can. It’s what my love of acting demands of me and filmmaking demands of me. I’d like to be a superhero, a midget (vertically challenged) man, a fan with a prosthetic face. The kind of lie most men are incapable of being. I’ll be whatever lie reaches into the truest expression of my creativity. To become an actor you need to deconstruct yourself, you need to discard the self, that’s what the truth is when it comes to your art. We filmmakers have also far too long given more credibility to constructed and jaded ideas. We search for art, we search for form, without searching the essence of our stories. We find logic in commerce and disregard the free spirit of story telling. We have to remind ourselves that truth is formless, only untruths have form. We as a film fraternity have to be truer to ourselves and hence to the stories we set out to tell.
So I request all my critic friends here, please don’t be like us Bollywood film stars and get carried away by what Bollywood succumbed to many years ago, the star system. The star system cannot be the only way of summing up films by a critic. 3 stars, 3 and a half stars, 3 and a quarter stars, 5 stars. It’s a film it’s not a hotel for God’s sake. With the advent of home grown critics sprouting all over, film critic is becoming an endangered species. Please let it not perish to be replaced by a consumer service that has no brains and all thumbs. Meanwhile as actors and filmmakers I will try not to keep spreading my arms and flash my dimples at every given opportunity.
And so I wish the whole film fraternity that is gathered here tonight. Raja Sen who I really love because when the film is the biggest disaster he is the only one who likes it. [Hindi]…if she’s here, I love all the alliteration she uses all the time…But I wish the whole fraternity with all my love and goodness as a filmmaker as a star that you’ve made me. May these awards encourage better filmmaking and may the critics here find enough films to like, and encourage that better filmmaking.
And now, I will quickly perform “Chaiyya Chaiyya” with 100 dancers….
My Discussion Starter:
I bolded the two statements I found most revolutionary. First, that idea that “the truth is formless”, that relates to art, to politics, to history, to everything. Forget the context, forget Shahrukh is a movie star talking at an award’s show, that is a deep deep idea, one that we should all sit with for a long time and try to reach in and understand.
And second, his ending plea to ignore the star system. This is why I don’t use stars on my reviews. Film is art, and you don’t serve anyone when you grade art or try to minimize it that way. It would be like saying “Mona Lisa-5 Stars. Starry Night-4 and a half. Beethoven’s 5th-3 stars”. That’s crazy, that’s not how you can talk about creativity. And the reliance of the audience and (increasingly) of critics on the star system is reducing the ability for critical thought in general. And reducing openness to different opinions, to new art, to the world.
He wraps that final plea up in a long explanation pointing out that critics are killing themselves in two ways. First, by reducing themselves to the same level as an amateur review, they leave nothing to differentiate themselves from the amateurs. And second, they are killing the very art form that gives them their jobs, if they do not encourage people to love film and treat seriously, no one will watch it.
That is the content of the speech, but the form is also part of the message. He is speaking to writers and encouraging them to be better writers. And this is beautifully written. The words and phrases he uses, “preening”, “rigidity of logic” “off-white on white on white off-white”, this is a high level of writing and demonstrates his right to be here and to talk to them as an equal. As does his opening, gently twitting Anupama and Rajeev but also pointing out that the criticisms they offer are not that unique, not that deep, and not that hard.
And of course, it is also fun and witty. It’s a ten minute speech, which is looooooong for this kind of event, but it doesn’t feel long. He floats along with little jokes, Hindi asides, entertaining phrasing for his statements, and ends with that great joke. He wraps up his medicine in a lot of sweet.
And this is also a case where the medium is the message, again. This is not a speech that he had professionally filmed or released through his twitter (so far). It was made specifically for the people in the room with him at that moment. Whether or not anyone else reads it or hears it is unimportant to him. He could have written this exact same thing and published it on Facebook, but then the reviewers he is trying to reach might not have heard. The goal is to convince those people in the room with him at that moment.
And one final thing, you know how I have mentioned before that Shahrukh and I agree in many ways and that is why I am his fan? Not because we agree, but because at a basic level we have the same values and those are translated into the world as opinions in which we think the same. I already mentioned that I made a choice not to use stars on my reviews. I also wrote a post about the danger of “word of mouth” versus real true reviews of films. And buried in my post on Priyanka Chopra and her narrative of an affair with him is a comment about how the truth doesn’t have a moral or fit a particular message, that’s how you know it is true.
Okay, now go wild in the comments and sharing this around and all. That transcription was SO HARD! you better appreciate it 🙂
dontcallitbollywood 
I think your take on the nature of truth and untruth is spot on and bears some watching. I’ve put out a call to get the Hindi translated. As soon as I have something, I’ll let you know.
LikeLike
My guess is that the Hindi was kind of meta jokey comments on what he was saying in English, off the cuff jokes about it.
LikeLike
Mine too which is why I want to know. I got one translation which doesn’t make much sense. He translated one line as “Don’t feel bad & if u feel bad what u can do to me, I don’t do such films.” ?
LikeLike
He used a Hindi idiom so that’s hard to translate but the gist of what he’s saying is “I hope you don’t feel bad (about the roast) but even if you do, what power do you have (or what difference does it make).. what are you going to do? Not give me an award? I don’t make those types of films anyway.” It was obviously a joke but a sharp one – he and the critics both know they can’t do anything to him.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Also a nice reminder that he came to talk knowing he wouldn’t get an award, just because he cared and wanted to get this message out.
LikeLiked by 1 person
May I send your translation out to my twitter friends desperate to know?
LikeLike
This is a great speech but his “try harder, do better” message will go nowhere with these people. They’re happy he came and gave their awards attention because otherwise, nobody would have cared. That’s as far as it goes.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I don’t know if you’re keeping track but SRK made a video to encourage voting and tagged Modi. Modi replied immediately to SRK’s tweet. Regardless of the disclaimer in his video, it is going to look like a tacit approval of the BJP. The Congress party must have thought so too and within minutes released an old video of SRK talking about diversity. Now both are busy pretending he’s on their side.
LikeLike
I’ve now listened to it a few times. We always speculate how he feels about the those two unbelievably great interviews he gave Anupama and then she turned around and trashed the film. I think he is getting witty revenge on her and she is going to have to take it in good spirit. Since she says such nasty things in her reviews, she has to be able to at least pretend to take it. He is/was upset.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It is a big problem with her, I think, since she has chosen to videotape her interviews while still being a reviewer. Old-school Anupama, the amazing researcher and journalist, would draw out these wonderful interviews with people and then weave them together into her argument. But now she is throwing the whole interview up as it’s own thing, and a review separation, and it’s just WEIRD. You can’t be a fawning interviewer, and also a harsh objective reviewer.
Pretend this isn’t a super cocky thing to say, but that’s why I don’t really want to interview people. Not that they had ever offered, but if it was offered, I don’t know if I would do it. I like being able to just slam into people and movies without feeling like a hypocrite.
On Mon, Apr 22, 2019 at 7:55 PM dontcallitbollywood wrote:
>
LikeLike
I think one of the things he was actually saying to her was just that. You can’t fawn and giggle at a star and then pan the film. One or the other. No, you shouldn’t interview, I agree. Of course if Shah Rukh calls you abandoning all principles and GOING.
LikeLike
Not even “you can’t pan the film”. I would say more generally “you can’t be taken seriously as a reviewer”. Good or bad, it taints the review if we have just seen the same person writing it being overly sweet to the stars involved.
If Shahrukh calls me, I’d skip the interview and just go for the fan interaction and the photos 🙂
On Tue, Apr 23, 2019 at 4:53 PM dontcallitbollywood wrote:
>
LikeLiked by 1 person
I don’t find Anupama nasty, she and Rajeev are perhaps the only credible critics among the bunch. She still gets trolled for apparently favouring some production houses. Irrespective of any interviews, as a professional critic, what is she supposed to say if she doesn’t like the films? In fact, I find it funny, imagining her battling her fondness for SRK to give unbiased opinions on his movies. I wouldn’t want to be in her shoes!
LikeLiked by 2 people
And this is why she has to either stop doing interviews or stop doing reviews! There is no healthy balance that will let her be honest in both.
LikeLike
I’m amused by the mechanics of this ceremony. The critics have come together to award merit and talent in the industry, separate from the commerce of it all, and rightly so! But SRK hasn’t been a critics’ darling for quite some time, yet they need him to advertise their initiative. I wonder whether they actually respect and admire him or it’s all because despite everything, ‘SRK sells!’
LikeLike
Without SRK’s presence, this awards show wouldn’t have gotten a 2 line write-up in the media. Does anyone know or care who even won the awards? I’ve see nothing other than articles about SRK showing up as a surprise.
What other options did they have? Salman would not give them 5 seconds of his time. Aamir has to maintain his pretentious “I’m above awards” image. It’s been too carefully built. Amitabh is too old to matter now. The younger ones like Ranbir and Ranveer have nothing much going on up there in their heads. The actresses never get respect anyway. SRK is the only possibility. He could have chosen not to come but I think he used the opportunity to give them a lecture and distribute some bitter medicine. The joke’s on him because they don’t care and won’t change their ways. They’re just busy giggling and showing off that they got a “shout-out” from SRK. Just check their twitter accounts.
LikeLike
Obviously “despite everything, ‘SRK sells!’ ” Yet, never ever there is only one side to look at things and ShahRukh is cherished in many ways by the film fraternity.
He chose Anupama and Rajeev to pinpoint what he would say later…and Margret, I’m not only grateful for doing the transcription but also that you pointed to two arguments which – among other arguments – elevate this speech to a level I doubt everybody may grab or- what would be like a dream come true – follow suit.
I may not always agree with Raja Sen but he definitely is one of those critics whose art of looking at a movie tries to respect the work of art a movie can be. I like to read him although with too little time at hand I first look at your blog…and then come others 😉
I think, ShahRukh’s speech is bold, courageous, deep and self-reflecting. After the rejection of especially Ra.One, Fan, JHMS and Zero, his thought process oviously lead him to decide that he hasn’t become an actor and filmmaker to please the critics…he would not adjust his visions to frames other than cinematographic ones.
LikeLiked by 1 person
What I like about Raja Sen is that I don’t always agree with his final conclusion, but I always appreciate his points along the way. Which I guess is a sign of his quality, there is more to his reviews than just “this was a good movie” “this was a bad movie”. He really tries to say something beyond that.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you for the transcription and your thoughts on the speech! It was so enjoyable to watch him spoofing critics, awards, reviews, and actors/filmmakers feelings about reviews, all in a couple of minutes, then transitioning to a thought-provoking talk about the evolving nature of media, audiences, and the roles and responsibilities of actors, artists, filmmakers, and critics. That he touched on both the nature of truth and of storytelling is icing on a yummy, but not too sweet, cake.
I feel confident that all of these people manage their personal (to the extent they exist) and professional relationships just fine, including the tensions inherent among the roles of interviewer, promoter of a particular media outlet, and critic. Having said that, I’m glad Shah Rukh got to turn the tables a bit on Anu and Rajeev, and to appreciate Raja’s approach as an exemplar of the art of film reviewing (while being self-deprecating about Zero’s domestic box office failure).
LikeLike
One thing that occurs to me, which has always been part of media but is enhanced with new media, is that the audience for content doesn’t necessarily have the full context of the personal relationships around it. I feel like Shahrukh and Anupama and Rajeev, for example, their interactions are part of a tapestry of professional relationships that reach back decades. It would always be possible to tune in for one interview, or read one review. But now that you can so much more easily share the link to just one thing and spread it around, it is that much easier to think of a bad review of Shahrukh’s performances as the only review that person has ever given him. Does that make sense? I feel like Rajeev and Anupama are reviewing SRK’s new movies with an awareness that they have given him loads and loads of good reviews in the past, and Shahrukh knows that too, and they all kind of assume that the audience and readership does, but they don’t necessarily.
I get stuck in that myself in a very small way, people reading one or two posts and thinking of me as the one who “hates Shahrukh” or “only writes about Shahrukh” or “only writes hate pieces on Kangana” or whatever. It’s tedious, but maybe I should start doing a context for my writing at the start of each post? Or is that not worth it? Probably not, the people who only read one post and don’t bother exploring the home page of the site or anything else before reaching a judgement wouldn’t read any opening statement either.
On Tue, Apr 23, 2019 at 10:50 AM dontcallitbollywood wrote:
>
LikeLike
Context and relationships with content providers–so many interesting aspects to discuss! It must be frustrating to have your views and arguments put into boxes like that. Shah Rukh must feel similar frustration when someone who doesn’t know Hindi film very well *cough Zeinab Badawi cough* isolate scenes from one or two films to criticize rather than looking at any given film overall, let alone his body of work.
I agree that an opening statement for context is probably not helpful–though I like your disclaimers on the Hindi Film 101 posts. Ultimately we all have to be accountable for being critical media consumers by having some idea of where a content creator is coming from and whether they have established any credibility or authority on the subjects they’re addressing.
BTW I shared this on social media with a little extra comment. Trying to get better about that!
LikeLike
Thank you for sharing! Looks like I got 9 new twitter referrals since your tweet, which is usually how many I get in a whole day.
Another thing to think about with longstanding relationships is how sometimes there is a conscious attempt to reinvent and leave the past behind. Media figures jump to a new content stream and try to pretend their past doesn’t exist. Stand up comics who became “serious actors”, or long form writers who became talking heads on TV shows. Anupama has done it a little bit, I still think of her as primarily a writer, but I don’t think she has really written anything of depth in years and years and years. Although I also don’t think she would deny she wrote things in the past, it’s just no longer the primary part of her brand. You don’t see her being introduced as “Anupama Chopra, the foremost authority on the making of Sholay”. Or people asking her “Anupama, when are you writing your next 200 page book based on original research into an extremely specific topic?”
One thing that I find interesting with Shahrukh is that he wants people to have that full context, rather than hiding a part of his professional career, he benefits when the whole is appreciated. Stage to TV to anti-hero to hero to producer is an interesting journey and the more context people have, the better he looks. On the other hand, Salman and Aamir both lean more towards hiding their past a bit. Salman’s fans today don’t want to remember his past as a lover boy gentle hero. And Aamir’s fans don’t want to remember his past as the star of a bunch of dreadful movies he did just for the paycheck.
On Tue, Apr 23, 2019 at 11:32 AM dontcallitbollywood wrote:
>
LikeLiked by 1 person
Just re-reading. Anupama is “bejewelled”, not “beached well”. 😆
LikeLike
THANK YOU!!!!! I could not get that word and I finally gave up and just left in my placeholder.
Any others you caught? Is it “egalative and fertile”? That was another one I wasn’t sure on.
On Tue, Apr 23, 2019 at 7:22 PM dontcallitbollywood wrote:
>
LikeLike
Ooh goody, another reason to listen to the speech again! He just says “egalitarian platforms”, with a little flub at the beginning of “platforms”. 🙂
LikeLike
Thank you!!!!! And I think that is everything? Everything else makes sense?
On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 10:20 AM dontcallitbollywood wrote:
>
LikeLiked by 1 person
I really liked that SRK roasted the critics, and not-so-gently at that, in my opinion. Then he told them how they could and should do better because they’re jeopardizing they’re jobs. 😂 (Is Anupama’s career over?!?) I do feel that a few jabs about “when will you ask better questions” and “when will you next write a thoughtful review” would not have been unwarranted!
Being relatively new to Bollywood, I tend to watch with a *very* open mind. To be honest, of the 100+ or so movies I’ve seen, I can genuinely say that only a couple felt unwatchable. (I still can’t get through King Uncle. 🙄) Even SRK’s worst movies are a heck of a lot better than one would expect from a guy who was filming 3 and 4 movies at a time. And, he lights up the screen every time he shows up, regardless of his dialogue. At least the Germans seem to get it.
I have found that most critics’ reviews tend to agitate me something fierce. Apparently, the sign of a great film critic is that he or she thinks everything is crap – Terrible Storyline! Overblown Costumes! Too Many Songs! Gratuitous Acting! – and who breathlessly implores moviegoers to stay far, far away from the theaters for their own well-being. Does disliking a(all) movie(s) REALLY make you a genius critic? Wow. Perhaps we should all jump on that bandwagon. Further, telling me that I’m not erudite enough to understand why I should NOT have enjoyed JHMS (in particular) nor Fan, Zero, RaOne, etc. is incredibly condescending and self-important. Yeah, I get it, some scenes could have been better/left out/altered/re-written – what have you. But in the end, was seeing that 142 minute movie *worth* your time and money? Better than a root canal? More entertaining than listening to the kids fight? Who cares if every movie’s not a masterpiece? I honestly don’t want to watch those all the time. I *like* to be diverted. I have enough real life, thank you very much. Reel life should be less painful, more interesting, way hotter, and in much better shape than either my husband or I can pull off. That is why I watch Hindi films!
Perhaps I should start my own review page: Reviews For People Too Stupid To Hate Films Properly. Wonder if I’d get any traffic …
**end rant**
LikeLiked by 1 person
That was a great rant! And you put your finger on, I think, a kind of basic misunderstanding on reviewing. It shouldn’t be “let me save you from watching a terrible movie” it should be “let me help you decide if this is a movie you might like”. That’s the problem with grades and stars for films, it implies that only a 5 star or an A+ movie is worth watching. Instead of those ratings being a sign of something really once in a lifetime spectacular, they become a sign of “only the once in a life time spectacular films are worth watching.”
In my Word of Mouth post I used the example of Bahubali. It is that once in a lifetime level, but it only came about because Rajamouli made a bunch of okay movies that helped him work through his ideas, and Prabhas and Anushka were in the okay Mirchi and really terrible Billa. For a film industry to survive, to be healthy enough to create those once-in-a-lifetime perfect films, there needs to be space for those “enjoyable” movies to life. If reviewers keep telling the audience that they shouldn’t even enjoy a movie unless it is perfect, then no perfect movies will be made. Does that make sense? You need those first 5 pancakes before you can get to the perfect one. And there’s plenty of people who will be happy to eat those first 5 for you instead of only waiting for the perfect one. Heck, it’s down right cruel to deprive people of those first 5 pancakes if they are hungry just because you think they should only enjoy the perfect one.
I hope my site is helpful to you, it is only once in a blue moon that I will absolutely dislike a film. Although I feel bad, I did dislike Zero. But I still didn’t tell people to stay home and skip it. I think Tubelight might be the only movie I told folks to actually stay away from. That one is REALLY BAD. Just torture to watch.
LikeLike
Zero was not fabulous, but Mere Naam Tu made it totally worth the watch for me. Plus, and I suspect I’m in a very small minority here, I’m a big fan of movie tech. I can spend so much time marveling at the how’d-they-do-that?? aspect that I can miss the whole storyline. I also sometimes find *really really really* good acting so engrossing that I end up concentrating more on the process than the actual reason for it. There are so many different things to analyze and critique about every film that I have to agree that stars just don’t cut it.
That reminds me, why are choreographers not generally more highly credited in BW movies??? That’s such an important part!
LikeLike
I agree about choreographers! Whenever I am able to glean who did what song, usually from interviews or behind the scenes not the official credits list, I try really hard to make a mental note of it. Because there is no other way to find that data.
For me, it was Mere Naam Tu and the Katrina storyline. Really almost everything up to NASA was fine. I still think it wasn’t a good movie, but there is always something worthwhile even in the worst films.
LikeLike
Oh, and one other thing which kind of proves your point. I actually enjoy King Uncle, for the way it turns Annie around for the Indian context, and the one really fun movie spoof song in the middle. Which are specific things for me, myself, someone who grew up with the original Annie and didn’t much like it, and someone who always likes movie spoofs. If you were a reviewer who said “this is a bad movie and I found nothing to enjoy in it, and thus no one else will ever find something to enjoy”, then that would have been wrong. But you wouldn’t be that reviewer.
LikeLike
No, I wouldn’t be! There is generally something for every taste and persuasion, and a good reviewer should be able to point those things out so as to guide, rather than direct.
I also feel that personal or biased statements about actors and directors is completely unnecessary and should be left to gossip rags. I also generally prefer not to know my favorite performers’ views on XYZ because I may vehemently disagree with their political position or hate the fact that they loathe my favorite movie star/singer/writer. Then I may not want to see their performance because I’m put off by something that is completely irrelevant to said performance.
Sometimes it’s so *hard* to keep an open mind. (The fact that you are only ‘supposed’ to champion one Khan while denigrating the other two is baffling to me. Why? Am I missing a major plot point here??)
LikeLike
What’s funny is sometimes I will get people coming to my blog who assume I will of course denigrate the other Khans because I like Shahrukh. Like, that is what they expect now from people. And then I will get kudos when I compliment another Khans film. I always like getting compliments, but it feels like a weird thing to compliment me on. On the other hand, I will always enjoy a Shahrukh film on a different level, that is true, just because I know him and his performance style so much better than other actors. So I guess in that way it is relevant, I am a Shahrukh expert.
LikeLike
One reason I really like Sucharita Tyagi’s not a movie reviews is that she doesn’t do the star thing, and in fact makes fun of the “star system” of ratings a bit.
LikeLike
Bravo! Chic article and chic translation of the words of Shahrukh ji. Keep up the good work! It is You we need as a true film critic!!!
LikeLike
Thank you, that is very nice of you.
LikeLike
I found this article very relevant and interesting-
https://www.filmcompanion.in/why-film-companion-will-not-have-stars-ratings-in-movie-reviews-baradwaj-rangan/amp/
LikeLike